A World without Religion?

[Latias]

The fact is that many civilizations perished because they made bad choices. They chose not to cooperate, but rather to exploit, plunder, and annihilate. The Nazi civilization perished for those reasons. Had they listened to God, they would have made other choices. By your logic they didn’t need God. All they needed was to be animals. But it’s the animal in them that made them ferocious (more likely the devil).

What does the rise and fall of Nazi Germany have to morality and “listening to God”. What this evokes in my mind is the integral Confucian concept of the Mandate of Heaven in which the Emperor’s regime is legitimate because heaven (different from the Judeo-Christian concept of heaven) permits the regime because the regime is just and promotes social harmony, while vicious, abusive and barbarous regime earn heaven’s disapproval and fall.

By similar reasoning, you probably think neoliberal capitalism and liberal democracy have a Mandate of Heaven.

Still, the fall of Nazi Germany could best be understood by its diplomatic and military decisions it made, and the logistics of its military-industrial complex, which was limited without direct access to natural resources.

 

[PRmerger]

Aloysium, yourself, PR…nobody seems to think it would apply to them personally (no, WE would never do that!).

But the point is, Brad, without an objective morality, we have no apologia for telling someone else: what you are doing is immoral.

That would be as otiose as saying: your choice of favorite ice cream is immoral.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

They can’t be atheists because we don’t believe He exists in any case and we don’t think that anything is permissible. And that only leaves Christians.

It appears that what you are saying is that Christians would be free to do anything at all if they lost their belief.

Well, here’s the rub. You can say that “we don’t think that anything is permissible,” but you are speaking only for one atheist … you. Nor is there anything in atheism that says anything is not permissible, whereas with Christ we know for an unquestionable fact that many things are not only not permissible, but other things are beyond permissible … they are required for our salvation.

What is there in atheism that requires anything besides what the individual atheists decides to require of himself and others?

Christians would not necessarily feel free to do anything at all if they lost their belief, though some who are caught up in the devil’s web might do just that . In most cases their consciences would have been informed of right and wrong and that residual training in ethics would carry them a long way.

There’s an old Jesuit saying:

“You can take the boy out of the Church, but you can’t take the Church out of the boy.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What does the rise and fall of Nazi Germany have to morality and “listening to God”. What this evokes in my mind is the integral Confucian concept of the Mandate of Heaven in which the Emperor’s regime is legitimate because heaven (different from the Judeo-Christian concept of heaven) permits the regime because the regime is just and promotes social harmony, while vicious, abusive and barbarous regime earn heaven’s disapproval and fall.

By similar reasoning, you probably think neoliberal capitalism and liberal democracy have a Mandate of Heaven.

Still, the fall of Nazi Germany could best be understood by its diplomatic and military decisions it made, and the logistics of its military-industrial complex, which was limited without direct access to natural resources.

I disagree.

The Nazis were not merely bad strategists. They were monsters. Evil devours itself.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I disagree.

The Nazis were not merely bad strategists. They were monsters. Evil devours itself.

Their defeat was largely driven by the Soviets…

 

[AnimalSpirits]

The fact is that many civilizations perished because they made bad choices. They chose not to cooperate, but rather to exploit, plunder, and annihilate. The Nazi civilization perished for those reasons. Had they listened to God, they would have made other choices. By your logic they didn’t need God. All they needed was to be animals. But it’s the animal in them that made them ferocious (more likely the devil).

A. It sounded like Aloysium was denying that societies would exist at all. Even in Nazi Germany, the common people weren’t marching around killing each other over petty disagreement.

B. They were not behaving in an animalistic way at all. Their movements were calculated, organized, and murderous, not blindly ferocious.

C. This actually serves to illustrate the point- when a person or a country goes around picking fights, others that are capable of fighting back might gang up and destroy the aggressor. Thus, there’s a purely natural rationale for not marching around doing what others consider evil or unjustified.

 

[Bradski]

But the point is, Brad, without an objective morality, we have no apologia for telling someone else: what you are doing is immoral.

That would be as otiose as saying: your choice of favorite ice cream is immoral.

Harm. Harm, for heaven’s sake. That’s how you decide if something is wrong. I really wish you’d pass on geometric shapes, ice cream and turnips. They are not applicable. Someone might want a strawberry ice cream but that is not going to harm anyone. Someone might feel the need to rape, but that will. You don’t need to be a Rhode’s Scholar to understand this.

Well, here’s the rub. You can say that “we don’t think that anything is permissible,” but you are speaking only for one atheist … you. Nor is there anything in atheism that says anything is not permissible, whereas with Christ we know for an unquestionable fact that many things are not only not permissible, but other things are beyond permissible … they are required for our salvation.

So if you lost your faith, you would be free to rape and pillage, murder and steal. But we can’t find a Christian who will agree to that. You wouldn’t do it, so you are personally refuting your own argument.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . So what would there be to stop you doing whatever you wanted? Anything, as has been repeatedly stated, is permissible. But we seem to be having great difficulty in finding anyone who feels that that would include themselves. . . They can’t be atheists because we don’t believe He exists in any case and we don’t think that anything is permissible. . . . It appears that what you are saying is that Christians would be free to do anything at all if they lost their belief. . . . Catholics seem to be able to class something as absolute when hardly anyone agrees (contraception), when it’s fifty fifty (gay marriage), or when everyone agrees (rape). I think that that is your problem. . . everything that is wrong now and would be wrong at all times for everyone, is objectively wrong. . . It could be that in a thousand years time (or maybe a lot sooner), eating meat will seem barbaric. So all reasonable people would say that farming animals was morally wrong. And will say it is wrong now and will always be wrong. So does it become an absolute truth? Well, that defies the very definition, so the definition cannot be valid.

All this is a journey towards God. Along the Way, which is the person of Trinity we know as the Son, the Word of God. We grow in love, in Christ; we become more Christ-like. Ultimately, through His sacrifice on the cross, we are able to enter into communion with God, who is Love.

Morality represents the will of God. As the Son returns the Father’s love through obedience, we do likewise, attempting to do His will and repenting when we fail. To do God’s will, which is to love, is to engage in complete freedom because it opens us up to increasing possibilities, brings us to who we truly are and to what makes us eternally happy. Catholicism is more than a set of beliefs, it is a dialogue, a relationship between God and His church.

We are all given sufficient grace to move ever closer to Home. I was baptized a Catholic and was always a religious sort of person, but I did not fully participate in or understand the teachings of the Church until relatively late in life. For most of my life I considered Christianity to be a sort of complicated, overly philosophical, western version of Hinduism. C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity started me seeing things a bit differently. It snowballed from there as life brought what it brings, forcing one to face reality. It is all a personal journey.

Is farming animals wrong? I don’t think so in general, although I do believe that current inhumane methods do us harm as a society. It may well be that, moving closer to God, what is asked of us may become more demanding. Also, as society changes new moral challenges arise to be addressed by the Church.

What is absolute, wherein lies truth, beauty and life is: One’s relationship with God - Love, eternal.

I would suggest that you do know God, believing that not everything is permissible. It is more than not harming others however; it is about arriving at the fullness of life life eternal.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So if you lost your faith, you would be free to rape and pillage, murder and steal. But we can’t find a Christian who will agree to that. You wouldn’t do it, so you are personally refuting your own argument.

No, I’m not. You’re not being logical. I would not be free to do those things because I have a built in crime detector largely nurtured by my faith and my God.

What about the atheist who has not lost his faith because he never had one?

What is the source of his moral authority? Himself? Does he get to legislate good and evil all by himself? Will the world go along with his legislation? Or will a world full of atheists (and no one else because there is no religion left in the world) create moral anarchy?

Do you honestly think there is something in atheism that inspires and nurtures virtue? If so, what would that something be?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Harm. Harm, for heaven’s sake. That’s how you decide if something is wrong.

What you are doing is sneaking in a qualitative determination under the guise that it is warranted by whatever moral system you have assumed.

The problem is, Bradski, that you have even refused to define harm, on this very thread; steering clear of giving a definition based on the fact that harm itself is subjectively determined. Now you want to sneak it back in as if everyone will simply accept that it has been objectively determined.

Under metaphysical naturalism, however, how is the disintegration of a physical human being any different than, say, a star burning out or a collision of one planet with another? Why would the physical demise of a human being be morally significant without the assumption that human beings have significance beyond that of stars, planets, trees or bugs?

Humans may not like their own demise and may even stretch that empathy to other human beings but if the warrant for valuing human beings is merely endowed by humans on each other that value can just as capriciously be revoked – we see that happening today with regard to the unborn, the aged and the handicapped. What reason or warrant do we have for valuing and not harming other human beings under metaphysical naturalism?

 

[Bradski]

No, I’m not. You’re not being logical. I would not be free to do those things because I have a built in crime detector largely nurtured by my faith and my God.:

So if you personally never believed, then you would be free to do those things.

 

[Bradski]

What you are doing is sneaking in a qualitative determination under the guise that it is warranted by whatever moral system you have assumed.

Sneaking it in? Good grief, I have to keep shouting it out in most posts. It has been the only reason I have ever given for making a decision on whether something is wrong. I have explained it, spelt it out, emphasised it, reiterated it, re-written it, given examples and denied all other methods for determining it.

I have explained that it can be intentional rather than actual, mental as well as physical and does not need to be personal.

It is the only method I use to determine if something is wrong and it is the only method anyone else uses. It is the only method you use, except that we will differ widely in certain areas as to what actually causes harm. That’s why you need reasonable arguments to convince me. Reasonable arguments that don’t include God, me being an atheist and all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sneaking it in? Good grief, I have to keep shouting it out in most posts. It has been the only reason I have ever given for making a decision on whether something is wrong. I have explained it, spelt it out, emphasised it, reiterated it, re-written it, given examples and denied all other methods for determining it.

I have explained that it can be intentional rather than actual, mental as well as physical and does not need to be personal.

It is the only method I use to determine if something is wrong and it is the only method anyone else uses. It is the only method you use, except that we will differ widely in certain areas as to what actually causes harm. That’s why you need reasonable arguments to convince me. Reasonable arguments that don’t include God, me being an atheist and all.

So when is actual harm done and how do we know?

If you are going to use harm as the criterion for moral determinations then it needs to be clearly explicated or how would we know that it has actually taken place?

This would be the point at which you declined to take a stance when asked previously.

 

[Bradski]

So when is actual harm done and how do we know?

That’s a decision, as I said, you will make yourself. You must have read it, I only wrote it a few minutes ago. I’d like to think that everyone would agree on all matters, but that’s not the way the world works, is it…

 

[Aloysium]

. . .It is the only method I use to determine if something is wrong and it is the only method anyone else uses. It is the only method you use, except that we will differ widely in certain areas as to what actually causes harm. . .

Luke 10:25-37 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.” But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Do the priest and the Levite do harm?

Christian morality calls us to love. What is love in an Atheistic world?

 

[Bradski]

Do the priest and the Levite do harm?

Christian morality calls us to love. What is love in an Atheistic world?

If someone was being beaten and you had the power to help that person, that is, to prevent harm being done, then you are complicit in that harm if you refuse to act.

The fact that someone was beaten before you were present does not preclude you from rendering assistance. If no harm was done, no assistance would be required.

What you call Christian morality in this case is a universal morality that almost everyone has. Primarily due to an inbuilt sense of empathy (yeah, I know, God gave us that).

 

[Peter_Plato]

If someone was being beaten and you had the power to help that person, that is, to prevent harm being done, then you are complicit in that harm if you refuse to act.

The fact that someone was beaten before you were present does not preclude you from rendering assistance. If no harm was done, no assistance would be required.

What you call Christian morality in this case is a universal morality that almost everyone has. Primarily due to an inbuilt sense of empathy (yeah, I know, God gave us that).

Doesn’t a negative depiction (harm) assume that something positive (good or goods) have been removed or compromised?

In that case, wouldn’t the removal of the positive good(s) actually be the evil in question – as opposed to some nebulous reference to harm? Why the reticence, then, in spelling out moral prerogatives in terms of good or goods, rather than making strictly their – without actually spelling out what “their” refers to – removal (harm) being the salient moral feature?

So, for example, rape would be evil because the bodily and psychological integrity of the woman is being compromised. The goods to which the woman has an intrinsic right would then define the evil rather than the immorality of an act being stated with reference to a merely negative statement that some undefined “harm” occurred. Stating morality in positive terms as “goods” owed would seem to be a more rigorous and complete account for morality, would it not?

It would seem to me that the reason you resist doing so is that identifying goods makes the project even more controversial, but relying on “harm” keeps defending your position at an emotional level where you can find more agreement from your hearers – i.e, getting agreement from others without the messy need to spell out what it is that others are actually agreeing to.

Everyone agrees that “harm” is “bad” and, therefore, no further explanation or explication is necessary, as far as you are concerned. Unfortunately, this strategy just seems quite inadequate since, logically speaking, a sufficient depiction of any “harm” requires that the good(s) being removed by the harmful behaviour should be identified and accounting for why taking THAT particular good or set of goods does do determinable “harm” to the individual in question is intrinsic to explaining why harm is, indeed, harmful. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Bradski]

So you’re saying that the bodily and psychological integrity of the woman has been…harmed.

I’m not seeing that you’re saying anything different to me, as ‘nebulous’ as you think it may be. In fact, Isn’t it the other side of the same coin? If you smack me in the mouth, you have harmed me (not really a difficult concept to understand), and you have, at the same time, removed my right not to be smacked in the mouth. To put it colloquially.

Are you thinking of any examples where you can have one without the other? Where you can be harmed without having something removed? If not, I’m not sure what point you are making.

 

[PRmerger]

Harm. Harm, for heaven’s sake. That’s how you decide if something is wrong.

That sounds suspiciously like an absolute truth you are declaring.

And what if someone declares that his moral code is NOT: do not harm

But rather: what is good is that which benefits me.

A world without God must permit that paradigm and give it as much respect as the Do No Harmers.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you’re saying that the bodily and psychological integrity of the woman has been…harmed.

I’m not seeing that you’re saying anything different to me, as ‘nebulous’ as you think it may be. In fact, Isn’t it the other side of the same coin? If you smack me in the mouth, you have harmed me (not really a difficult concept to understand), and you have, at the same time, removed my right not to be smacked in the mouth. To put it colloquially.

Are you thinking of any examples where you can have one without the other? Where you can be harmed without having something removed? If not, I’m not sure what point you are making.

Sure, but you are focusing on “harm” in general without explicating what has been harmed, just assuming that some good must have been in declaring that harm was in fact done. By not being clear and definite you assume you are avoiding the messy business of having to wade into the controversial regions of morality. That move makes it appear that you have sufficiently provided a moral accounting when what you are doing is letting the listener fill in the blanks. So provided the listener fills in his/her own “goods” that equate with “harm” you appear to agree, when, in fact, there is great room for disagreement which you avoid by stating that harm was done but by doing so avoid getting into specifics.

What right exists as a right “not to be smacked in the mouth?” Merely because people don’t universally care for it does not make it a right not to be. I don’t care to receive a speeding ticket, but that doesn’t give me a right not to be issued one. My point is that for a proper moral accounting to occur, an explication of the goods that supply the reasons or warrant for rights must be laid out.

You avoid that by stating a negative case (avoid harm) and hope to garner agreement by not bringing up any need to explain or justify which “goods” are actually infringed upon. Naming gross harms makes it appear that you have a consistent and systematic set of ethical beliefs, but your refusal to be explicit by making a positive case makes me question that you do.